Follow Up on the ASAT Talk [9]: "

Greetings from Dubai. Were I ever involved in a clandestine proliferation network I’d have meetings here too.

The Carnegie Endowment has a nice summary of Gregory and my talk — which is pretty amazing since I ramble and neither of us saw it or provided a draft of the paper:

Lewis then turned to the two dominant narratives of China’s ASAT test that have been popularized in the US. The first is that the ASAT test was part of an effort to optimize Chinese defense capabilities vis-à-vis the U.S. by ‘hitting the US where it hurts,’ he said. But Lewis and Kulacki said that the people they’ve talked to have not discussed the test in those terms. Kulacki noted that the so-called ‘soft ribs’ arguments rely on many of the same low-quality sources, published by graduate students in fringe journals. Others have speculated that the ASAT test was intended to force the U.S. into negotiations over the military use of space. Both of these explanations rely on the premise that China had accurately predicted the response of the US to the tests. The unpreparedness of Chinese officials in the aftermath of the ASAT test is not inconsistent with the statements of technocrats, who framed the development of the ASAT as part of a general drive to improve China’s military capabilities in space, not as an effort to provoke the U.S.

Also, Elaine Grossman wrote up the talk for Global Security Newswire.

Gregory and I are still finishing the paper, but you get the flavor of what we said. A few minor points of emphasis here or there are different — we didn’t put the Bush Administration at the center of the narrative at all, for example — but its close enough to start the discussion.

"



(Via ArmsControlWonk.)

Follow Up on the ASAT Talk [9]

This will impact the space weaponization debate: "

Remember all the debate in the weeks and months following the release of the new national space policy that the US was opening the door to the weaponization of space—and perhaps imperiling the security of its own space assets—by appearing to go down the road of space weaponization? Now comes work from Aviation Week that China tested, apparently successfully, an anti-satellite weapon earlier this month. The ASAT, fired from a Chinese spaceport, hit and apparently destroyed an aging Chinese polar-orbiting weather satellite on January 11. (ArmsControlWonk also had some discussion about the ASAT test shortly before the Aviation Week article was published Wednesday evening.)



It will be interesting to see how people on both sides of the space weaponization debate spin this. Is it a sign that the Chinese were not sincere in their opposition to space weaponization, and that therefore the US need to step up its defensive and offensive counterspace efforts, or does it reflect a failure of US policy (including claims that there is no 'arms race in space')? Or both?



"



(Via Space Politics.)

This will impact the space weaponization debate

Who benefits from the Chinese ASAT test: "

There's been plenty of discussion of the potential negative effects of the Chinese ASAT test earlier this month, from the debris created by the test imperiling other satellites to the increased threat now faced by US low Earth orbit satellites. But who will benefit? An Aerospace Daily article earlier this week suggests that both missile defense and operationally responsive space (ORS) efforts could win additional support based on the reaction to the test. Jeff Keuter of the Marshall Institute says that space-based missile defenses, which he argues could also be effective against ASATs, could get a, um, 'boost' (his words, not mine) from the test. Defensive counterspace—hardening or otherwise protecting satellites from attack—could also win coverts in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.



ORS, with its promised ability to quickly launch new or gapfiller spacecraft in the event of a crisis (like an ASAT attack on existing satellites), could also win new support. That may be critical since there had been rumors in previous months that funding for ORS in FY08 and beyond was jeopardy. Rand Simberg makes a similar argument in a TCS Daily essay, although I would quibble that the issue is not Operationally Responsive Spacelift, as he identifies it, but Operationally Responsive Space. Low-cost rapid launch is a key part of the puzzle, but it is not the only one, and maybe not even the most important one, given issues ranging from satellite buses and payloads to integrating those systems into existing systems to provide the maximum benefit to the warfighter.



"



(Via Space Politics.)

Who benefits from the Chinese ASAT test

Space lawyers in Hyderabad: "नमस्ते. Greetings from SLP to all gathered this week in Hyderabad, India for the 58th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2007).

The five-day summit, organized by the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics and of course the
International Institute of Space Law (IISL) (and did I leave anyone out?) -- all graciously hosted by the Indian Space Research Organisation and the Astronautical Society of India -- brings together delegates and seriously interested folks from all around the home planet to brainstorm about space interests -- business, technology, tourism, exploration and lots more. Which is just the sort of thing that will attract space lawyers galore.

Yes, I see a number of interesting space policy and law sessions in the
extensive IAC line-up, just one example of which is this space tourism law panel which I previewed in an earlier post. Wish I were there.

For now, some initial news out of Hyderabad, where the summit is underway
under tight security in the wake of last month's terror bombings in the city: Mike Griffin gave a speech outlining NASA's goals, saying in the centenary of the space age (that's 2057, if my math is correct,) 'we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars.' And India's Minister of State Prithviraj Chavan said his country is planning to conduct 60 space missions over the next five years.

As I've talked about, one of the main space law events, held in conjunction with IISL's annual space law colloquium at IAC, consists of the semi-finals and world finals of the
16th Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition. Future space lawyers who have been researching, pacing the floor and sharpening their oral arguments all year will duke it out in real space-time in the 'Case Concerning International Liability' (Emeralda v Mazonia); the semi-final will be held on Tuesday, Sept. 25th in a 'closed session' at the convention center in Hyderabad. The finals will be held on Thursday Sept. 27th at NALSAR University of Law, and, as I've noted, will be judged by three members of the International Court of Justice. The case may be moot but it is major league.

And yes, for invitees only, the annual dinner of IISL will follow the finals.

I look forward to hearing from everyone who has promised me news and updates from India. ;) Meanwhile, have fun, all; and good luck, moot court competitors!
"



(Via Space Law Probe.)

Space lawyers in Hyderabad

Space lawyers in Hyderabad: "नमस्ते. Greetings from SLP to all gathered this week in Hyderabad, India for the 58th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2007).

The five-day summit, organized by the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics and of course the
International Institute of Space Law (IISL) (and did I leave anyone out?) -- all graciously hosted by the Indian Space Research Organisation and the Astronautical Society of India -- brings together delegates and seriously interested folks from all around the home planet to brainstorm about space interests -- business, technology, tourism, exploration and lots more. Which is just the sort of thing that will attract space lawyers galore.

Yes, I see a number of interesting space policy and law sessions in the
extensive IAC line-up, just one example of which is this space tourism law panel which I previewed in an earlier post. Wish I were there.

For now, some initial news out of Hyderabad, where the summit is underway
under tight security in the wake of last month's terror bombings in the city: Mike Griffin gave a speech outlining NASA's goals, saying in the centenary of the space age (that's 2057, if my math is correct,) 'we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars.' And India's Minister of State Prithviraj Chavan said his country is planning to conduct 60 space missions over the next five years.

As I've talked about, one of the main space law events, held in conjunction with IISL's annual space law colloquium at IAC, consists of the semi-finals and world finals of the
16th Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition. Future space lawyers who have been researching, pacing the floor and sharpening their oral arguments all year will duke it out in real space-time in the 'Case Concerning International Liability' (Emeralda v Mazonia); the semi-final will be held on Tuesday, Sept. 25th in a 'closed session' at the convention center in Hyderabad. The finals will be held on Thursday Sept. 27th at NALSAR University of Law, and, as I've noted, will be judged by three members of the International Court of Justice. The case may be moot but it is major league.

And yes, for invitees only, the annual dinner of IISL will follow the finals.

I look forward to hearing from everyone who has promised me news and updates from India. ;) Meanwhile, have fun, all; and good luck, moot court competitors!
"



(Via Space Law Probe.)

Space lawyers in Hyderabad

Lawrence Martin on space-based warfare: "The Globe's Lawrence Martin has a decent piece on the policy context of the recent Chinese anti-satellite missile test.

While offering the Chinese no defence for their provocative action, Martin points out that the current US administration's allergy to multilateralism is also partly to blame for the current dangerous state of affairs:

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney showed no interest in a space treaty. Their national space policy is essentially hegemony in the heavens. They oppose the development of new legal regimes or other measures that restrict their designs. A UN resolution to prevent an arms race in space was supported by 151 countries with zero opposed. The U.S. abstained. It wants strategic control.
As indeed, the current US administration does.

That said, I can't let Martin's description of Canada's position pass without comment:
In the last election, the Paul Martin government campaigned vigorously against the weaponization of space, pledging to lead a worldwide effort opposing it. To date, the Harper government, while less vocal, is opposed to NMD [National Missile Defence].
True on both counts, but it's worth pointing out that both Liberal and Conservative governments have continued a Canadian policy of ever-increasing militarization of space, even while denouncing weaponization as beyond the pale.

In truth, the 'big red line' between militarization and weaponization Liberal Bill Graham used to talk about when he thought BMD might be a problem is no longer so big and bright as some might like: Canadian satellites are advertised for their ability to gather intelligence on potential military targets, just as the Canadian Forces move to acquire satellite-guided JDAM bombs and Excalibur howitzer rounds.

So just how committed are we Canadians--as we condemn the Chinese--to the purely 'peaceful' use of outer space?

Not as committed as we should be, in my view.

Peace, my friends.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ; ; ."



(Via No BMD, eh?.)

Lawrence Martin on space-based warfare

Polish democrats challenge BMD: "Here's the latest news from Poland:

WARSAW, Poland: A member of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski's government called Saturday for Poles to be allowed to decide whether their country should host part of a planned U.S. missile defense system.

'I am determined that a referendum is needed to determine whether this is to be the nation's will,' Andrzej Lepper, a deputy prime minister and agriculture minister, told a news conference.

Although it is unlikely a referendum on the decision will be held, Lepper's suggestion reflects Polish unease at having such sites in the country.

Polish leaders have said they are willing to talk with Washington about the issue, but that any decision would have to be made by parliament.
It would be a good thing, needless to say, if the Polish people were given a real opportunity to express their views on their government's BMD plans."



(Via No BMD, eh?.)

Polish democrats challenge BMD

AN OPEN LETTER TO PM PAUL MARTIN: "

Right-Hon. Paul Martin , Prime Minister of Canada



November 20, 2004



Dear Mr. Martin:



Canada is at a crossroads – and under heavy pressure from the United
States – with respect to the U.S.’s ‘missile defence’ program. This
program should be seen clearly – and assertively and publicly
acknowledged by Canada – for what it is, nothing less than a
pre-emptive action by the United States to dictate how space is to be
used and controlled to benefit and advance American interests.



As the Iraq war and its aftermath have borne out, pre-emptive action
by one player in the arena of international affairs is not only
immoral, it has wholly unpredictable and tragic consequences.



As noted recently by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in a 1997 U.S. Space Command planning document entitled 'Vision for 2020',
the military outlined its plan to control and dominate space. 'Control
of space,' the blueprint noted, 'is the ability to assure access to
space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to
deny others the use of space.' The back cover of the document features
a picture of the planet surrounded by space satellites and space-based
laser weapons with the words 'Space...the war fighters' edge.'



2020 is not some indefinite point in the future. It is just over 15 years from now. Is this the vision that Canada wants?



Further, as the CCPA notes, in August 2, 2004 the U.S. Air Force quietly published a new doctrine called Counterspace Operations.
In the Foreword to the document, General John Jumper, Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, stated: 'The development of offensive counterspace
capabilities provides combatant commanders with new tools for
counterspace operations. These operations may be utilized throughout
the spectrum of conflict and may achieve a variety of effects from
temporary denial to complete destruction of the adversary's space
capability.'



This document shows that the U.S. remains undeterred in its mission,
despite the blindingly unethical foundation for its position.



Canada must show leadership in providing a deterrent. Canada must
not only categorically refuse to be involved in any way in the
weaponization of space, it should provide the same kind of vision it
did in leading the initiative to ban landmines.



A 1,300-page report released
November 18th, 2004 by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
notes that since the international treaty prohibiting antipersonnel
landmines took effect five years ago, use of the weapon around the
world has fallen dramatically, global funding for mine action programs
has increased more than 80 percent, more than 1,100 square kilometres
of land have been cleared, and the number of new mine victims each year
has decreased markedly.



‘The international norm established by the Mine Ban Treaty is
rapidly taking firm hold around the world, especially in the heavily
mine-contaminated countries where it matters the most,’ said ICBL
Ambassador Jody Williams, who shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize with
the ICBL.



Note use of the term ‘international norm established.’ As success of
the movement worldwide to ban production, purchase, use, trade and
stockpiling of antipersonnel devices is demonstrating, a new way of
thinking based on peace has taken root, and is flourishing.



A new international norm with respect to space as a global commons
to be protected and used for the benefit of all the earth’s peoples
must similarly be established, and Canada must be unwavering in moving
such a positive, inclusive agenda forward.



Canada must enlist the support of other countries to place
weaponization of space squarely on the U.N. agenda. One way to do this
is to request that the U.N. General Assembly have a Space Preservation Treaty
permanently banning all space-based weapons and warfare in space ready
for signature by all U.N. Member Nations by United Nations Day, 2005
(October 24, 2005).



If the United Nations General Assembly fails to approve a Space
Preservation Treaty by October 24, 2005, then Canada should petition
the General Assembly to convene a Space Preservation Treaty Conference
to ban all space-based weapons and warfare in space, as with the 1997
Ottawa Land Mines Treaty Conference. Such a conference could be held in
Victoria-Vancouver, B.C. in June 2006, as part of the World Peace Forum 2006.



In the meantime, and beginning now, as Canada distances itself from
the American military agenda, our government must also move proactively
on trade and economic initiatives directed toward lessening Canada’s
dependence on the U.S. Canada’s companies, peoples and way of life must
not be beholden to the United States in any way. We must always remain
the true North, strong and free.



Sincerely,



Avery Ascher, Manitoba, Canada



cc. Hon. Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs



Bev Desjarlais, MP Churchill



Manitoba Campaign to Ban Landmines



Institute for Cooperation in Space



Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives





Click here to Sign Our U.N. Petition to ban Space-based weapons and warfare in space.


"



(Via Campaign for Cooperation in Space.)

AN OPEN LETTER TO PM PAUL MARTIN

Why A Space Preservation Treaty-Signing is Vital: "




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Space Preservation Treaty Signing-Signing
is the most reliable,timely, and effective method available that will
bring world leaders together to permanently ban all space-based weapons
in an enforceable verifiable manner that will lead to a 'cap' on the
war industry while it evolves into becoming a space industry.



An International Treaty Signing for the Space
Preservation Treaty can be convened at any time by any willing U.N.
Member State(s) under the authority of Article 102 of the United
Nations Charter.



Time is of the essence to get the Space Preservation Treaty signed into law.



The signing of the Space Preservation Treaty will help to put needed pressure on the U.S. congress and administration.



Key to preserving peace in space so we can achieve peace on earth:
When the first five (5) countries sign on to the Space Preservation
Treaty, an international outer space peacekeeping agency will be
established
and equipped to monitor outer space and enforce (conflict resolution
style) this ban. This equipment, of course, can also be used to finally
verify arms agreements including the reduction and
inevitably elimination of nuclear weapons and other dangerous and polluting technologies on our planet.



Solution: A 'Fast Track' signing of the Space Preservation Treaty
must funded in order to be set the Treaty signing process into
immediate motion. An international Treaty Signing Conference on the
Space Preservation Treaty must be convened as soon as possible to
facilitate the UN Member Nation leaders coming together for the signing
and to bring into force an immediate and permanent ban on all
space-based weapons. We must stop the arms race at the only moment in
time, in all of history, when it can be stopped, before it begins in
space (that is, before space-based weapons are deployed and/or before a
momentum of funding and vested interests makes the weaponization of
space impossible to stop).



Since 1948, over 40,000 multi-lateral agreements or Treaties have
been signed, ratified and deposited with the U.N. Secretary General by
Member States under Article 102 of the U.N. Charter. Under Article 102
of the United Nations Charter, 'every treaty and every international
agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the
present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be
registered with the Secretariat and published by it.'



An informal group of NGOs assists the convening Member States by
mobilizing public opinion, preparing briefing documents for the Member
States, and preparing educational materials in support of the Treaty
Conference, as was done in 1997 at the Ottawa, Canada, Land Mines
Treaty Conference.



Because there is intention of the current U.S. administration to
deploy a world-wide U.S. missile defense system, inexorably linked to
deploying space-based weapons under the guise of calling the deployment
'merely tests' of this system, the Space Preservation Treaty Signing
Conference must be produced quickly. Canada is identified as the best
location, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich as well as former MP Svend
Robinson (New Democratic Party) in the Canadian House of Commons have
called on Canadian leaders to convene this Space Preservation Treaty
Signing Conference.



The current U.S. administration plan is to 'seize the high ground'
to 'dominate and control space,' and many say that he who controls and
dominates space also controls and dominates all on earth. The momentum
of funding, vested interests and technology being put into place could
make it impossible to stop the weaponization of space if a ban is not
turned into law in time. Space-based weapons could be deployed under
the guise of calling them 'merely research' or 'merely tests,' or they
could be deployed without even the conducting of tests.



Many experts say this is an emergency situation, as there is only
one chance to ban space-based weapons. Many agree that time is of the
essence to get the Space Preservation Treaty signed into law quickly.
Experts also say that the signing of the Space Preservation Treaty will
put necessary pressure



The Space Preservation Treaty Conference Signing Ceremony will include a global media broadcast and Internet webcast.



CLICK HERE
for more information about the World Space Preservation Treaty Signing
Conference, and to read a copy of the Space Preservation Treaty for
yourself:



http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/space_preservation_treaty/



Please volunteer to help this endeavor. We need to build a world
movement to send packages of educational information to all world
leaders, to media, to the people about the Space Preservation Treaty
and to help organize the Space Preservation Treaty Conference.



...............................................



ICIS needs your help



There are many ways you can get involved to help preserve Peace in Space.



Volunteers and funders are needed to:



help produce the World Space Preservation Treaty Conference
help educate about the Space Preservation Treaty and Act
Introduce the Space Preservation Resolution in your City
help with day to day operations at ICIS
help reach out to women, NGOs, peace groups, organizations, activists, and communities.
help coordinate volunteers



If you have time, skills, contacts, or financial resources, please
fill out our comments form or contact us at:



For any comments, volunteers or questions, please contact us at
info@peaceinspace.com



Volunteers, organizers, experts, visionaries, and contributors are needed to:





1) Produce a Space Preservation Treaty Conference Process to
facilitate the gathering of world leaders to sign the Space
Preservation Treaty.



3) Produce a world and national movement to educate decision makers
and people about the urgency, feasibility, and benefits of banning
space-based weapons and continuing world cooperation in space.



4) Organize meetings in the military industrial lab university
intelligence NASA and other international organizations government(s)
complex and with decision makers, NGO's, and individuals to identify
what IS in space and what CAN BE in space of a non-weapons nature and
how that can provide solutions to human and environmental problems,
stimulate the economy (jobs and training programs) with a new
marketplace based on the R&D of clean and safe technology, products
and services that can enhance worldwide communication and information
sharing to bring the world together in a new cooperative world security
system.



CONTACT/CONTACTO



Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) – South America
PO Box 288
Loja, ECUADOR
Email: rosin@west.net
http://www.peaceinspace.com
http://www.madretierra1.com
Tel: 011 593 7 2 580687



Email Dr. Carol Rosin - rosin@west.net



Email Eleanor LeCain - EMLECAIN@aol.com



Email Norrie Huddle - nhuddle@frontiernet.net



Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) – North America
3339 West 41 Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6N3E5 CANADA
Tel: 604-733-8134
Fax: 604-733-8135
Email: info@peaceinspace.com
Campaign: http://www.peaceinspace.org
Exopolitics: http://www.exopolitics.com
ICIS: http://www.peaceinspace.com
STARDREAMS: http://www.peaceinspace.net



Email Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd - alw@peaceinspace.net



COURTESY OF:



L. Farhouni <freedom.respect@gmail.com>



Werkgroep Eurobom
PENN Netherlands
Obrechtstraat 43
3572 EC Utrecht
Netherlands
phone: +31 30 2714376 or +31 30 2722594
mobile phone: + 31 06 13223359
fax : +31 30 2714759
email: k.koster@inter.nl.net
http://www.antenna.nl/~amok/eurobom/



SIGN A U.N. PETITION for the Space Preservation Treaty Conference:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/832338563


"



(Via Campaign for Cooperation in Space.)

Why A Space Preservation Treaty-Signing is Vital
Claims that the US is intent on weaponizing space often ignore the very real efforts the Soviet Union made in space weapons during the Cold War. (credit: Defense Department)
Weaponization of space: who’s to blame?

by James Oberg
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Like children drawing glee in poking a stick into an anthill to see the turmoil they can cause, or teenagers throwing rocks at a chained junkyard dog just to hear him snarl, some elements of the Western news media seem to evince diabolical delight in seeing just how they can inflame good old fashioned Russian paranoia about “enemy threats”, especially from the United States. Regardless of the rationale, such exercises leave measurable scars on the international diplomatic scene.

In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to base weapons in space might lead to war.

Accuracy and consistency has never been a hallmark of this kind of space journalism. It’s been a year now since a White House space policy paper announced the US intention to “deny use” of foreign space assets to interfere in US freedom of action in space, but from the very beginning, major Western media (and the outraged Russian officials who echoed them) have shrieked about an American declaration to “deny access to space” for anybody the US doesn’t like. (Nevermind that the policy makes it clear to anyone who actually reads it that the US has no problem with any other country doing the same things in space the US reserves for itself also to do.) All the news that fits this editorial conclusion is deemed “fit to print”, and it is, but news that does not fit, usually doesn’t get printed.

The latest inflammatory round in this cosmic debate of “It’s America’s fault again” is now taking place, coincident with the well-justified celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Space Age by the USSR’s Sputnik.

In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to base weapons in space might lead to war. Western news media accounts report these statements straight, as if there really were such “plans” to do what the Russians complain about (station weapons in space for space-to-space combat), instead of only studies and tests—the kinds of activities that were they to occur in Russia or China, wouldn’t even be known to exist.

“We don’t want to fight in space,” Popovkin told his audience, “but on the other hand, we’ll not allow any other country to play the master in outer space. The consequences of positioning strike forces in orbit will be too serious.” And he wrote himself a blank check for a future free hand: “If any country will place a weapon in space, then our response will be the same,” he added, to the approving echo of press coverage around the world.

The blame for these trends is widely assigned to the United States (it’s always easier to confront an external threat if you can convince yourself you are in control, since if you believe you instigated the threat by bad behavior, this means you thus can dispel the threat by changing your own behavior). A perfect example of this theme can be found in the special pre-Sputnik-anniversary “Science Times” section of the New York Times, dated September 25. “From the Start, the Space Race Was an Arms Race”, accuses the headline over a long story by veteran space and science correspondent William Broad.

“Sputnik forced the Eisenhower administration to consider a scary new world of space arms,” the story opened. “It did so in two ways: talking peace and preparing for war.” That Eisenhower deliberately assigned America’s satellite project to a research rocket rather than a weapons rocket, and that after Sputnik he established a civilian-controlled space exploration administration (something the Soviets never did), and that saw space as an opportunity for a tension-reducing “Open Skies” strategy that ultimately prevailed and kept the peace for decades—these themes don’t fit the headline, and don’t appear in the text.

“That duality held firm for much of the ensuing half century,” Broad continued. “Washington publicly encouraged peaceful uses of space even while spending billions to explore futuristic weaponry like death rays fired from rocket ships.”

What Broad does not mention, here in the opening or anywhere else in the story, is that if there was any leader in the weaponization of space—not merely its use in support of military activities on Earth, but for space-to-space combat—it was the Soviet Union. What “Moscow spent” is not tallied or reported, just what “Washington spent,” in a perfectly contrived asymmetry of half-truth.

New York Times actually was researching a story on a Soviet orbital beam weapon project in the late 1990’s, as the tenth anniversary of the first test launch of this so-called “Polyus-Skif” system approached.

Not mentioned here, or anywhere else, ever, in the Times (as far as I’ve been able to determine), was the heavy-caliber cannon installed on a Soviet manned space station to destroy American spacecraft, manned or otherwise. Not discussed here are the orbital thermonuclear weapons designed, tested, and deployed by the USSR in the 1960s, whose operation was expressly forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967—a scrap of paper that provided no protection to their use in a sneak attack on the United States. Not mentioned here, or so far as I can tell ever in the history of the New York Times, are the handguns that the Russians are allowed to pack at the International Space Station (NASA’s website doesn’t mention them either), or the much more serious space-to-space attack vehicles (on standby in earth-based launch tubes) whose very existence Moscow denied for decades.

And despite the Times’ long campaign against the Reagan concept of “Strategic Defense” (“Star Wars” is the Hollywood-derived gimmicky misnomer for the project, which Broad follows again in his article by using the movie War of the Worlds as a current example of space weaponry), there is no mention here of the Soviet project in the mid-1980’s, contemporary with US studies of such a system, for an orbital beam weapon at anti-satellite and anti-missile functions. Broad’s omission of mention of this project—and the apparent absence of any other mention of it on the pages of the Times, anywhere, anyime—is particularly curious.

This is because I have learned that the New York Times actually was researching a story on this project in the late 1990’s, as the tenth anniversary of the first test launch of this so-called “Polyus-Skif” system (May 15, 1987) approached. I understand that significant work was done gathering newly-released Moscow materials, and with Russian scientists who had worked on the project.

But then—so goes the account I have obtained—the story was “spiked”, killed by the newspaper’s editorial board. Retired Soviet prime minister Mikhail Gorbachev, who had approved the orbital weapon project even as he publicly denounced Reagan’s interest in a similar system, wouldn’t cooperate—probably in consideration of his high reputation in the West, he didn’t seem to want the story to get any publicity. The Times acquiesced to this intention, and the story never appeared—and ten years later, a space anniversary special edition can now be written as if that aggressive Soviet space weapon never existed since the Times had never written about it.

Instead, Broad’s article (which for all we know sparked General Popovkin’s latest rants in Moscow) criticizes a project called the “Space Test Bed” as “a first step toward orbital antimissile arms”, even though he admits in the next sentence that it isn’t even funded for 2008-2009.

To call one of his sources, The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), merely “a private group in Cambridge, Mass.”, is equally disingenuous: they have become known as a lobby group opposed to US weapons systems with a track record of ignoring Soviet and Russian space weapons even better than that of the New York Times. To them, the “Space Test Bed” would be “ineffective against speeding missiles, but probably good at shattering satellites”, a “real value”, according to an unnamed source there, that “is certain to be recognized, and perhaps responded to, by other nations” in a space arms race. Popovkin’s blank check to build his own space-to-space weapons, then, is being endorsed by the UCS, and they seem eager to bring this rationale (and their readiness to make excuses on his behalf) to his attention, on the cooperative pages of the Times.

To fabricate and encourage Russian fears of the imminent American “weaponization of space” isn’t merely a matter of politically useful alarmism and ideologically satisfying posturing. To the degree that it reinforces Russian fears and encourages Russian militaristic responses, it is downright dangerous and irresponsible.

Overlooked by both experts and journalists is the inconvenient truth that proposed space-based anti-missile systems will be designed with guidance sensors that depend on hot rocket exhausts and large missile skins, the sort of thing you’d see during an actual launch. Satellites orbiting passively high above Earth are not nearly as big as missiles, and are nowhere near as hot. They usually aren’t firing rocket engines at all. Anti-missile systems of the type under consideration probably could not even detect such targets, much less hit them —but don’t let Popovkin and his comrades learn about that.

Beyond the finger-pointing of who really did what first in space is the more important issue of cause and effect: whose causes justify whose effects? The Soviet space weapons track record shows that none of those systems was ever exploited by the US to justify building a similar one: the US usually chose its arsenal based on assessed requirements, not in a game of “mine is bigger than yours”. And any attempt by the US to field a mirror-image system would no doubt have been severely criticized by those same lobby groups (and newspapers) who today approvingly report on the new Russian claims that any US space weapon (or even any report in the New York Times of a new US space weapon) is full justification for their building one too.

To fabricate and encourage Russian fears of the imminent American “weaponization of space”, then, isn’t merely a matter of politically useful alarmism and ideologically satisfying posturing. To the degree that it reinforces Russian fears and encourages Russian militaristic responses, it is downright dangerous and irresponsible. Shame on the space-war fear mongers: they are part of the problem, not part of the solution, which is accuracy.

James Oberg (www.jamesoberg.com) is a 22-year veteran of NASA mission control. He is now a writer and consultant in Houston.

The Space Review: Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty: ""



(Via .)

The Space Review: Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty
(Please adjust your speaker's volume, audio will begin automatically)

China missile test is justified

by Dhananjay Khadilkar
Friday, February 16, 2007 21:56 IST

MUMBAI: The anti-satellite missile test was China's way of bringing the US to the negotiating table for stopping the proliferation of space weapons. This was stated by Alfred Webre, co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and the Space Preservation Act that was introduced in the US Congress.

Talking to DNA about the Chinese test, Webre said that for the past 6 years China and Russia had played a positive role to curb the proliferation of space weapons.

However, the Bush administration had unilaterally terminated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by Nixon and Brezhnev in 2002 with a clear intention of developing highly sophisticated space weapons to dominate the world. It was in response to the US belligerence that China conducted the anti-satellite missile test.

According to Webre, the US government is engaged in the development of a platform in space which will be used to launch laser, depleted Uranium weapons called 'Rods of god', with an aim to dominate earth as well as space.

"The new space weapons are so sophisticated that an object of the size of the football can be targeted," Webre said.

The US wants to claim ownership of outer space which is a violation of the 1968 UN treaty on outer space.

Webre though feels that despite there being some justification there are a lot of negatives associated with the Chinese test. "The US would use this test as an excuse to further accelerate the development of missile defence system."

"Also, the destruction of a satellite has resulted in the increase of junk in space which poses a great threat to the satellites and space vehicles," he added.

Considering the current geopolitical scenario in which China is pitted against the US, the anti-satellite test won't be enough to force the US to back off from its agenda.

"Anything that China does is perceived as anti-US and vice-versa. A third country therefore can play a crucial role in bringing both the sides to the table and sign the Space Preservation Treaty," Webre said.

According to Webre, that country could be India. "India is a space superpower as well as an advocate of non-proliferation. India can easily attract a number of countries to sign the Space Preservation Treaty which bans the use of space weapons and promotes space economy."

Original article: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1080422

URL of this article: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/peaceinspaceorg/2007/02/china_missile_t.html

China's Missile Message - Council on Foreign Relations: "China's Missile Message

Author: Elizabeth C. Economy, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies
January 25, 2007The Washington Post

China's successful anti-satellite missile test has sparked a political firestorm, as analysts have tried to ascertain who in China knew what when and to what end. Were China%u2019s diplomats in the dark about the missile strike? Was it all a gambit to force a reluctant United States to the negotiating table for a ban on space-based weapons? While interesting to China watchers and nonproliferation experts, this discussion risks obscuring the real message of the test: Chinese rhetoric notwithstanding, China%u2019s rise will be as disruptive and difficult as that of any other global power.Officials in both Beijing and Washington have worked hard to sketch out an alternative reality. China%u2019s leaders have traversed the globe, preaching the gospel of the country%u2019s peaceful rise, often to great effect: China will do things differently than the United States and earlier European powers did, not polluting the environment, not colonizing countries to gain access to their natural resources and not infringing on the sovereignty of other countries. For their part, senior U.S. officials, with a growing list of challenging issues on their China agenda, are reluctant to focus for too long on the reality of China%u2019s rise. Doing so would only make cooperation more difficult and provide support to an often obstreperous anti-China lobby in Congress. It is easier to paint China%u2019s rise as a work in progress%u2014one that the United States has the ability to influence."



(Via .)

China's Missile Message - Council on Foreign Relations
Security: China's Space Ambitions, Issue #2

21 March 2006


Author: Eric Hagt, WSI China Director



The second issue of the World Security Institute’s China Security journal has been released today. Produced by the World Security Institute’s China Program, China Security is a unique policy journal featuring Chinese scholars who provide their perspective on vital traditional and non-traditional security issues that impact China ’s strategic development and its relations with the United States . The English-language journal seeks to build bridges between Washington and Beijing on today’s security issues.



The second issue of China Security is focused on the Chinese space program. In this issue, China Security features six Chinese authors and two American authors who discuss China 's space program and policies and how the Chinese are affected by U.S. activities in space. In addition, World Security Institute President Bruce Blair and Co-Director of the World Security Institute’s International Media Division Chen Yali provide a comprehensive overview of the issue’s salient arguments in their “Editors’ Notes.”



This issue of China Security also provides English-translated reviews of expert articles only available in Chinese, including a review of the new Chinese National Television (CCTV) documentary on the history of the Chinese space program, “Shaking the Heavens.”



A number of articles and books recently published by Chinese authors on space weaponization, civilian space programs and the exploitation of space resources are also explored.



To subscribe to the electronic PDF version, or to receive a hard copy of China Security, please email: info@wsichina.org. Please note that there are a limited number of hard copies available.



Editors’ Notes: The Space Security Dilemma, by Bruce Blair and Chen Yali “Bilateral exchanges…and constructive proposals for cooperation have barely begun in the arena of space policy. The dialogue is oblique, long on rhetoric and short on information.” 
--Bruce Blair, president of the World Security Institute, and Chen Yali, editor-in-chief of Washington Observer Weekly



China’s Space Mission, by Chang Xianqi and Sui Junqin 
“ China does not have any plan to use micro-satellites as anti-satellite weapons…since China is neither the first country to possess this technology, nor the country with the most advanced technology, it seems incomprehensible that China should cause concern to others.”
--Chang Xianqi, professor and former president of the Institute of Command & Technology, and Sui Junqin, Ph.D. candidate at the Institute of Command & Technology.



Security in Space, by Zhang Hui
“…a proposal that restricted ASATs while allowing the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system would be perceived by China as discriminatory…any partial arms control measure involving China should emphasize this concern.” 
--Zhang Hui, research associate at the Project on Managing the Atom of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government



Strategic Communication, by Joan Johnson-Freese “When the United States pursues certain technologies…it is for connectivity in a global world. When China pursues similar technology, nefarious intent is assumed because of its Communist government.” 
--Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the department of national security studies at the Naval War College



Shenzhou and Dreams of Space, by Sun Dangen “When the success of the manned space program helps consolidate the country’s strength, it will further lock China in the development path of protecting national security with advancement of science and technology and national comprehensive strength.” --Sun Dangen, senior research fellow at the Academy of Military Sciences Space Weaponization, by Teng Jianqun


“It is reasonable to assume that the development of human productivity will ineluctably bring war from land, sea and air into outer space if no constraints are placed on it. The international community should draw lessons from history and should either halt the current drift toward space weaponization or, at the very least, slow its trend.”
--Teng Jianqun, director of the research department of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association



Space and Export Control, by Guo Xiaobing “It is high time the U.S. chart a new course and dispose of a policy that has not only failed in its goal of preventing China ’s development in space, but has alienated China and fueled an adversarial relationship between the two countries.”
--Guo Xiaobing, researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations



Vulnerabilities in Space, by Eric Hagt “An environment, where each fears the other will be first to develop and deploy weapons and gain the military advantage in space, creates a vicious circle that threatens to undermine the security interests of both countries as well as the international community.” 
--Eric Hagt , director of the China Program at the World Security Institute



Development Goals in Space, by Wu Chunsi “China does not have the luxury of engaging in a military competition with superpowers in space, or in other areas.” 
--Wu Chunsi, associate professor at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University



The World Security Institute is a non-profit organization committed to independent research and journalism on global affairs. Given the extraordinary growth of global interdependence, the Institute provides an innovative approach to communication, education, and cooperation on the social, economic, environmental, political and military components of international security. Through a variety of publications and services, the World Security Institute provides news and research-based analysis to policy-makers around the globe – from decision-makers in Washington , D.C. and Moscow , to scholars in the Farsi- and Arabic-speaking world, to scientists in China .



The Institute serves as an authoritative and impartial monitor of security issues, while continuing to meet the increasing worldwide demand for information and independent ideas. In 2004, the World Security Institute successfully launched a new effort dedicated to promoting research and dialogue between China and the United States on a range of traditional and non-traditional security issues that deeply impact this crucial relationship.



The China Program presently focuses on a number of core projects: China-U.S. Dialogue on Space; China’s Energy Security: New Approaches, Media and Policy; and Challenges for China, the United States, and Europe: A Trialogue on Comprehensive Security. Click here for the PDF version of China Security.



Additional Contact: Eric Hagt , Editor, China Security: Tel: 202.332.0600, ehagt@wsichina.org

(Via World Security Institute.)

China Shows Assertiveness in Weapons Test

By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: January 20, 2007
New York Times / Space

BEIJING, Jan. 19 — China’s apparent success in destroying one of its own orbiting satellites with a ballistic missile signals that its rising military intends to contest American supremacy in space, a realm many here consider increasingly crucial to national security.

The test of an antisatellite weapon last week, which Beijing declined to confirm or deny Friday despite widespread news coverage and diplomatic inquiries, was perceived by East Asia experts as China’s most provocative military action since it testfired missiles off the coast of Taiwan more than a decade ago.

Unlike in the Taiwan exercise, the message this time was directed mainly at the United States, the sole superpower in space.

With lengthy white papers, energetic diplomacy and generous aid policies, Chinese officials have taken pains in recent years to present their country as a new kind of global power that, unlike the United States, has only good will toward other nations.

But some analysts say the test shows that the reality is more complex. China has surging national wealth, legitimate security concerns and an opaque military bureaucracy that may belie the government’s promise of a “peaceful rise.”

“This is the other face of China, the hard power side that they usually keep well hidden,” said Chong-Pin Lin, an expert on China’s military in Taiwan. “They talk more about peace and diplomacy, but the push to develop lethal, high-tech capabilities has not slowed down at all.”
Japan, South Korea and Australia are among the countries in the region that pressed China to explain the test, which if real would make it the third power, after the United States and the Soviet Union, to shoot down an object in space.

China’s Foreign and Defense Ministries declined to comment on reports of the test, which were based on United States intelligence data. Liu Jianchao, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, would say only that China opposed using weapons in space. “China will not participate in any kind of arms race in outer space,” he told Reuters.

China’s silence on the test underscores how much its rapidly modernizing military — perhaps especially the Second Artillery forces, in charge of its ballistic missile program — remains isolated and secretive, answering only to President Hu Jintao, who heads the military as well as the ruling Communist Party.

Having a weapon that can disable or destroy satellites is considered a component of China’s unofficial doctrine of asymmetrical warfare. China’s army strategists have written that the military intends to use relatively inexpensive but highly disruptive technologies to impede the better-equipped and better-trained American forces in the event of an armed conflict — over Taiwan, for example.

The Pentagon makes extensive use of satellites for military communications, intelligence and missile guidance, and some Chinese experts have argued that damaging its space-based satellite infrastructure could hobble American forces.

Yet while China’s research and development of such weapons has been well known, the apparent decision to test-fire an antisatellite weapon came as a surprise to many analysts.

“If this is fully corroborated, it is a very significant event that is likely to recast relations between the United States and China,” said Allan Behm, a former official in Australia’s Defense Ministry. “This was a very sophisticated thing to do, and the willingness to do it means that we’re seeing a different level of threat.”

China’s military expenditures have been growing at nearly a double-digit pace, even after adjusting for inflation, for 15 years. China has begun to deploy sophisticated submarines, aircraft and antiship missiles that the Pentagon says could have offensive uses.

Yet with a few notable exceptions, Beijing has avoided sharp provocations that could prompt the United States or Japan to focus more on what some officials in each country regard as a potential threat.

Chinese leaders emphasize that they are preoccupied with domestic challenges and intend to focus their energy and resources on economic development, a policy they say depends heavily on cross-border investment, open trade and friendly foreign relations.

The country has denied that it intends to develop space weapons and sharply criticized the United States for experimenting with a space-based missile defense system. It forged a coalition of Asian countries to jointly develop peaceful space-based technologies.

Last month it published and heavily promoted a white paper on military strategy that emphasized its view that space must remain weapon-free. “China is unflinching in taking the road of peaceful development and always maintains that outer space is the common wealth of mankind,” the paper said.

Some of such talk amounts to little more than propaganda. But Jonathan Pollack, a China specialist at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., says the Chinese military does in fact act cautiously when it comes to improving its strategic capabilities, like long-range missiles and nuclear weapons, to avoid causing alarm in the United States.

“They have talked about antisatellite weapons,” he said. “But we have always thought that the threat was ambiguous and that China probably wanted it that way. So what was the calculation to go ahead with an actual test?”

Some analysts suggested that one possible motivation was to prod the Bush administration to negotiate a treaty to ban space weapons. Russia and China have advocated such a treaty, but President Bush rejected those calls when he authorized a policy that seeks to preserve “freedom of action” in space.

Chinese officials have warned that an arms race could ensue if Washington did not change course.
At a United Nations conference in Vienna last June on uses of space, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official, Tang Guoqiang, called the policies of “certain nations” disconcerting.

“Outer space is the common heritage of mankind, and weaponization of outer space is bound to trigger off an arms race, thus rendering outer space a new arena for military confrontation,” he said, according to an official transcript of his remarks.

Even so, Mr. Pollack, of the Naval War College, said that if China hoped that demonstrating a new weapon of this kind would prompt a positive response in Washington, they most likely miscalculated.

“Very frankly, many people in Washington will find that this validates the view of a China threat,” Mr. Pollack said. “It could well end up backfiring and forcing the U.S. to take new steps to counter China.”

Other analysts said the test might have more to do with proving a technology under development for many years than a cold-war-style negotiating tactic.
China maintains a minimal nuclear arsenal that could inflict enough damage on an enemy to guard against any pre-emptive strike, these analysts said. But the increasing sophistication of American missile interceptors, which are linked to satellite surveillance, threatens the viability of China’s limited nuclear arsenal, some in Beijing have argued.

That may have prompted the Second Artillery to show that it had the means to protect fixed missile sites and ensure China’s retaliatory capacity by showing that it could take out American satellites.
At the annual military fair in Zhuhai, held in November, the Guangdong-based newspaper Information Times and several other state-run media outlets carried a short interview with an unidentified military official boasting that China had “already completely ensured that it has second-strike capability.” The analyst said China could protect its retaliatory forces because it could destroy satellites in space.

American officials have also noted the development. This month, Lt. Gen. Michael Mapes of the Army testified before Congress that China and Russia were working on systems to hit American satellites with lasers or missiles. And over the summer, the director of the National Reconnaissance Office, Donald M. Kerr, told reporters that the Chinese had used a ground-based laser to “paint,” or illuminate, an American satellite, a possible first step to using lasers to destroy satellites.
“China is becoming more assertive in just about every military field,” said Mr. Behm, the Australian expert. “It is not going to concede that the U.S. can be the hegemon in space forever.”

Space without Weapons: "How to move forward: NGO Approaches and Initiatives for
addressing Space Security

By Rebecca Johnson, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament
Diplomacy.

Notes for presentation at Joint Conference on 'Future
Security in Space: Commercial, Military and Arms Control
Trade-Offs', the Monterey Institute of International Studies and
the Mountbatten Centre, May 28-29, 2002.

This paper was published in James Clay Moltz (ed), Future Security in
Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs,
Monterey Institute Center for Nonproliferation Studies and
Mountbatten Centre for International Studies, Occasional Paper No.
10 (July 2002)."



(Excerpt on Space Preservation Bill)

The most uncompromising of the NGOs working on space issues, the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, helped initiate and strongly supports a Space Preservation Bill tabled in the House of Representative by Dennis Kucinich (Democrat-Ohio) as HR 3616 (January 2002) In essence, the bill calls on the U.S. to ban all research, development, testing, and deployment of space-based weapons. If passed, it would also require the United States to enter negotiations toward an international treaty to ban weapons in space. The Global Network is now soliciting American groups and individuals and international groups to pledge their support to Kucinich's Bill. Such initiatives, although unlikely to be successful per se, can be very useful in raising the issue and focussing public and political attention. There is, however, one potential danger that has to be taken into account by proponents of national legislation and particularly by advocates of early international treaty negotiations: that premature legislative initiatives may also serve to focus and strengthen the opposition to such measures, thereby "inoculating" the issue against later, more pragmatically targeted initiatives to prevent the weaponisation of space. I am not making an argument against initiatives such as the Kucinich Bill, which can be a very helpful rallying point for activists, so much as sounding a note of caution about how it is used.

(Via .)

Read the whole text

Czechs Give Go-Ahead for US 'Son of Star Wars' Base: "Czechs Give Go-Ahead for US 'Son of Star Wars' Base"



(Via Common Dreams | News & Views.)

Czechs Give Go-Ahead for US 'Son of Star Wars' Base

Space without Weapons:

(Excerpt)
By Rebecca Johnson, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

Conclusions

"I will conclude with four brief points.

i) There is still a need to forge alliances and communicate better with commercial and military players, including in the United States, who are rationally capable of recognising the weaponisation of space as a threat to their interests and activities.

ii) We need to engage parliamentarians now much more effectively, to raise the level of debate in different countries and regional institutions such as the European Union, and to provide them with the information and questions to ask governments, defence ministries and regional alliances such as NATO.

iii) We need to do more to break down the institutional and political barriers so as to address both the civilian and military aspects of space security more coherently.

iv) To adapt a principle of political strategy (think globally but act locally), we need to think comprehensively, but build the space security architecture incrementally!

Thank you.

[1] The connection between Sputnik's 50th anniversary and the OST's 40th anniversary was made by Will Marshall during the question and discussion session after my presentation, and I am glad to incorporate his suggestion for timing the OST review conference to coincide with this.

© 2006 The Acronym Institute."



(Via .)

Space without Weapons

Responses to Chinese test [5]: "

Most Russian news repeated almost verbatim the US and British press reports on the Chinese ASAT test, but there is a little info this afternoon on the Russian reaction. (Only Russian language links are up for now, translations are mine.)

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov commented to reporters that he has heard reports of the Chinese test, but thinks that the rumors are quite abstract and are exaggerated.

In an interview, vice-preseident of the Russian Academy of geopolitcal affairs, General Leonid Ivashov, said that he thinks the Chinese used Russian developments for making their antisatellite missiles:



‘I think that China used as a base our Soviet IS-1 (statellite destroyer) system, modernized it and carried out a test.’

[snip]

‘We remember Bush’s announcements about monopolization of space and his threat to destroy all unidentified satellites. Therefore it is possible to say that, it is indeed the Americans who are provoking a new arms race in space ’ [Ivashov] said, noting that China is compelled to react to such US policy.

Japan and Australia seem more concerned than the Russians, and have demanded explanations from the Chinese government.

"



(Via ArmsControlWonk.)

Responses to Chinese test [5]

Congressional Reaction to Chinese ASAT Test: "

House Science and Technology Chair Gordon Comments on Reported Chinese ASAT Test

'I am deeply concerned about the reported Chinese anti-satellite test.  I believe that it is ill-advised for a number of reasons:  it is destabilizing; the debris cloud created as a result of the test increases the risk to civil and commercial satellites; and the test fosters an environment that will make it more difficult to consider potential cooperation with China in civil space activities.  I hope that this will be the last such test to occur.'

Markey Denounces Chinese Missile Test - Calls on Bush Administration to Strike Agreement to Ban Future Tests

'The Chinese anti-satellite test is terrible news for international stability and security, and could presage the dawn of a new arms race -- this time in space,' Rep. Markey said.  'American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security, and it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems.'



(Via NASA Watch.)

Congressional Reaction to Chinese ASAT Test

China ASAT test reactions and questions: "

The news first announced Wednesday night that China tested an ASAT weapon last week, destroying a satellite, became one of the biggest stories internationally yesterday. The report was confirmed by a National Security Council spokesman yesterday morning, and by the end of the day the US and other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and South Korea, had 'expressed concern' about the test. The Chinese have remained silent, with no news about the test in state-run media.



The test does raise several questions about which there has been a lot of speculation, but few firm answers:



Why did China conduct the test? The test took a lot of people by surprise (although apparently not in the US intelligence community, which believed that a test was imminent), both because of the bluntness of it and the fact that, prior to it, China had insisted it had no interest in space weapons and was pushing for a treaty to ban such devices. 'There’s nothing subtle about this,' Michael Krepon of the Stimson Center told the New York Times. Does this mean that China is no longer interested in a ban on such weapons, or is it an effort to get the attention of the US and force it to the negotiation table?



How will the Bush Administration respond? Will the US, in fact, reconsider its stance on PAROS, now that there is evidence of an 'arms race in space', or will it push the US to accelerate work on defensive and offensive counterspace systems? The Union of Concerned Scientists wants the US to take the former path, but that would involve a significant change of course from the current national space policy.



What about Congress? The House and Senate armed services committees will get classified briefings about the Chinese ASAT test today, Space News reports [subscription required]. One member of Congress, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, condemned the test in a statement but also called on the administration to negotiate a ban on space weapons. 'American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security, and it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems.'



"



(Via Space Politics.)

China ASAT test reactions and questions

CANADA: Liberals would seek international ban on weaponization of space: leaked platform: "

canada, canadian search engine, free email, canada news
Wednesday » January 11 » 2006



Grits would seek international ban on weaponization of space: leaked platform.
Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press
Wednesday, January 11, 2006

MONTREAL (CP) - Canada would seek an international deal to permanently ban weapons in space under a re-elected Liberal government, according to a leaked copy of the party's platform.

The pledge is aimed at rallying the nation's more moderate voters behind the Liberals in a late-campaign drive to reverse the governing party's sagging electoral prospects. Paul Martin will take that stand against weapons in space when he unveils his party platform as early as Wednesday and will paint the pledge as the latest in a long line of Liberal-led peace initiatives.

The idea will almost certainly meet with hostility from the U.S. government, coming on the heels of Canada's refusal to sign on to the American missile-defence project.

As much as that missile snub irritated the White House, public opinion polls conducted earlier this year suggested it was a crowd-pleaser in Canada.

The weapons pledge is one of the few headline-grabbing announcements left for a Liberal party seeking to strike a chord with voters before the Jan. 23 election.

'Liberals are firmly opposed to the weaponization of space and recognize that the best time to prevent an arms race in space is before one begins,' says the leaked version of the platform.

The 85-page document was posted on the website for the conservative Western Standard magazine and confirms unpublished rumours of an impending Liberal space-weapons announcement.

The proposal is modelled on the 1999 international mine ban treaty, for which then-foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

While the Liberal minister did not win the award, he was applauded for an effort that now includes 146 countries and helped clear more than 130 million square metres of land mines around the world.

The United States, China, India and Russia did not sign on to that treaty and it's entirely possible that the world military powers will also take a dim view of the space-weapons pledge.

The Liberals plan to also draw parallels between their proposed space-weapons plan and past initiatives like Pierre Trudeau's nuclear-disarmament tour and Lester B. Pearson's role in resolving the 1956 Suez crisis, which earned him the Nobel prize.

There is at least one notable difference between Martin's impending promise and the land-mines initiative it is supposed to emulate.

Unlike land mines - a global scourge that has killed and maimed thousands of civilians around the world - there are no weapons in space and won't be for the foreseeable future.

The U.S. says its current missile project, which includes interceptor sites in Alaska and California, does not include imminent plans for weapons in space.

Furthermore, the leaked document concedes that an existing international agreement already bans weapons of mass destruction in space. It adds, however, that no such deal exists for smaller-scale weapons.

The rest of the leaked Liberal platform largely confirms recently announced promises. Those pledges include:

- $30 billion in personal income-tax cuts.

- Eliminating the $975 landing fee for immigrants.

- Up to $3,000 to help first-and last-year undergraduate students with tuition and a $150 million fund to offset tuition costs for those wishing to study abroad.

- $3.5 billion for workplace skills training.

- A so-called 'ban' on handguns that would require collectors to disarm their weapons. The plan would also see millions go to police and community projects to help reduce urban crime.

- Continuing to reduce the nation's debt-to-GDP ratio to 20 per cent by 2020 - a level unseen since the early 1970s.

The political aims of the space-weapons ban are unmistakeable.

The Liberals have struggled to find Canada-U.S. wedge issues that would force their Conservatives rivals into an uneasy defence of the more unpopular policies of the U.S. Bush administration.

That strategy - which Martin has attempted on climate change, gun control, the Iraq war and on missile defence - has met with limited success during the campaign.

When Martin rebuked his foes for sharing Washington's hostility to the Kyoto climate-change accord, analysts correctly pointed out his own government's woeful record on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has also tempered his enthusiasm for President George W. Bush's Iraq invasion and for the missile project.

It was the same with gun control.

Liberals were hoping that their proposed 'ban' on handguns would draw their chief rival into a National Rifle Association-style defence of the right to bear arms.

Instead Harper responded with his own anti-gun package that includes harsher sentencing, and was careful to avoid criticizing the principle of gun control.
© The Canadian Press 2006

(Via Campaign for Cooperation in Space.)

CANADA: Liberals would seek international ban on weaponization of space: leaked platform

The European Space Preservation Initiative Proactive Strategy:

THE STRATEGY WE ARE IMPLEMENTING WITH THIS INITIATIVE IS COMPOSED OF THREE SEPARATE PATHS, THAT ARE A GUIDANCE RECOMMENDATION TO STATE MEMBERS OF THE EU-EUROPEAN UNION AND OTHER NATIONS IN EUROPE, FOR A FULL PROCESS BAN OF ALL SPACE-BASED WEAPONS; THE CREATION OF AN OUTER SPACE PEACE-KEEPING AGENCY, A NEW GLOBAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE WEAPONS AND WARFARE ECONOMY & INDUSTRY. CONTEMPLATING UNLIMITED PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL HUMANKIND, WITH A LONG LIST OF NEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT WILL RISE WITHIN NEW SPACE MARKETS, UNDER AN EXTENSIVE TRANSNATIONAL PEACEFUL COOPERATION DIRECTLY FOCUSED IN APPLYING EXISTING SOLUTIONS TO THE HUMANITARIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS.

- Peace Action, under International Law:

- Educational Effort:

- United Nations Space Preservation Treaty-Signing Conference Sponsorship & World Peaceful Applications, New Energy and Sustainable Development Alternatives Forum:

...

CDI: Space Security Update:

Space industry estimated to reach $180 billion

The Space Foundation released the “Space Report: The Guide to Global Space Activity,” which estimates that the space industry now has global revenues of $180 billion. According to the company’s press release, the report divides the space industry into the following categories: “space infrastructure, space products and services, space revenues and government budgets, how space products and services are used, their impact, and the outlook for the future.” The report’s executive summary can be found at http://www.thespacereport.org/executive_summary.pdf

U.S. Opposes Restrictions on Use of Space

25 October 2006

U.S. Opposes Restrictions on Use of Space
Policy acknowledges new technology, importance of space to international commerce

By Cheryl Pellerin
Washington File Staff Writer


Astronaut Heidemarie M. Stefanyshyn-Piper participates in a spacewalk. (© AP Images)

Washington -- Freedom of action in space is the centerpiece of a new U.S. National Space Policy, the first update in nearly 10 years, that accounts for technology advances and the growing importance of space to international commerce, science, peace and security.

New elements include using space support for homeland security, emphasizing and strengthening interagency partnerships, and renewing the emphasis on the value of mission success in the U.S. government’s space acquisition programs.

U.S. Opposes Restrictions on Use of Space: ""

(Via .)

USINFO.STATE.GOV